1.25 GHz PowerMacs Shipping

[arn]

The 1.25 GHz PowerMacs appear to be shipping. Both ClubMac (http://www.clubmac.com) and MacMall (http://www.macmall.com) mail order houses are reporting that PowerMac G4 1.25GHz machines are finally shipping this week.

Apple's own online store (http://store.apple.com), however, still reports a 2-3 week ship time.

[jelloshotsrule]

this can't be a bad thing.....

took a bit longer than i'd have thought, but i haven't done the math to see how it compares to the announced shipping timeframe...

good to see they're getting them out at least. now to see some real world benchmarks...

[iwantanewmac]

That's good news!
But still im hoping they will be replaced again early next year.
Im thinking of buying a dual 1.25 but.......what willl happen?
who knows :)

[alex_ant]

If it were July 2000.

[P-Worm]

Now, don't flame me, but does anyone care about these things? I got caught up in all of the 1.6 ghz thing. I didn't really think that i twould happen, but all of the dreams built up inside of me and when I saw that it was "just" 1.25 Ghz, I didn't really care. i thought to my self, bring on those Power 4's and I'm still waiting today.

So really, i just want to know if anyone is interested in these things.

P-Worm

[ryan]

Originally posted by P-Worm
So really, i just want to know if anyone is interested in these things.
I sure don't. Just this past weekend I became sorely disappointed in the performance of Apple's current generation of hardware/software. I was helping my grandfather setup a new 800MHz G4 iMac (after his original 233MHz iMac died a couple of weeks back). He wanted to stick with OS9 which was fine with me since that is what he was use to and he didn't have any OSX native applications. I could not believe how stupidly fast OS9 was on that machine. Scrolling of windows, opening folders, launching apps all happened instantly. Thinking that this one fast computer I booted it to 10.2 Boy, did that show me what a slow performer OSX is. Now I really like OSX because it allows me to actually use my Mac for work (Java/web/database development) but it is so slow when compared to OS9 on the extact same hardware.

Apple needs to make great strides in their hardware or software (or both) for me to consider sticking with the Mac when I'm ready to upgrade my iBook in the next 12-18 months. (this is coming from someone who has been using the Mac Plus days)

[Microsift]

Originally posted by arn

Apple's own online store (http://store.apple.com), however, still reports a 2-3 week ship time. [/B]

So what? the question is has anyone who ordered one from Apple gotten one!

[scem0]

I would not buy the new 1.25, I would wait till Jan. It sounds like something good is coming out in Jan. SOmething good better come out :eek: (that emiticon is suppost to be a threatening look :D)

[jbmelby]

Originally posted by Microsift
So what? the question is has anyone who ordered one from Apple gotten one!
I don't know--but I was told by an Apple Store employee this morning that my machine would ship on Friday, and another Apple Store employee told me this afternoon that I wouldn't get it until somewhere around October 9th. I hope that this morning's report was right--because October 9th is the day I'm scheduled to have knee replacement surgery. Fun, fun!

:(

[nixd2001]

Originally posted by ryan

I sure don't. Just this past weekend I became sorely disappointed in the performance of Apple's current generation of hardware/software. ...
Apple needs to make great strides in their hardware or software (or both)

How much memory did the machine have? I think there's enough random snippets of observation around to make it a reasonable safe conclusion that OS X can fly, but it needs plenty of memory to make this happen. If you had 128MB, I imagine performance stank. If you had 256MB it might have been Okish. If you had 512MB it should have got interesting.

However, OS X may never be as fast as OS 9 on the same system simply because it's doing more. Just as there was a time that actually moving the entire window contents when you dragged around a window was slower than dragging an outline of the window.

Sourcing a decent amount of memory from PC commidity suppliers (hey - people catching on to one sensible reason for Apple choosing DDR yet?) is not a major cost - Jaguar costs about the same as another 512MB US$ I believe.

[oldMac]

No doubt about it...

After using OS X for a while, you install OS 9 on a machine and it feels *A LOT* faster.

Unfortunately, I think it will take some significant upgrades to Apple hardware (and a few OS routine re-writes) before OS X ever feels "snappy".

My guess is that it would start to feel "snappy" at about 2GHz with a serious video card (Quartz Extreme).

[Anecdoter]

Responding to P-Worm:

I for one, care about the new dual 1.25 ghz Power Macs. I, like you, have been enticed many times by countless rumors. However, during the course of nearly two years, I finally realized that no matter what they introduce next year, there will always be something faster down the road.
I'd rather enjoy a brand new Mac now, than wait for the inevitable, but ellusive, "super Mac." Besides, the sheer amount of processing power, hard drive space and functionality of any of the new Power Macs are more than I'll (or 99.9% of the computing public) will ever use.
That's why in another month or two, there will be a new dual 1.25ghz sitting on my desk. By the way, don't get your hopes too high about the Power4/G5 , even if they are released. My guess is that for the next several years after their release they will be in a new top tier (above the G4 Power Macs) of high-end video workstations, priced probbly at over $5000 for the entry-level.

Steve

[daRAT]

I dunno, I stuck a new seagate drive in my Cube and did a fresh install of Jag, it seems snappy to me. Granted boot up takes longer and askin' me if I really want to shut down is annoying. Overall I find it faster than OS 9. I also has 1.1+ gig's of ram, that may help with another 512 stick enroute :]

[skunk]

It IS slow as hell. Very little functionality is added to the UI to compensate for the sluggishness the "extra features" (i.e. eye candy) produce. As of now, it's a bad trade-off. In my humble opinion.

[katman]

Mine (1.25ghz) shipped today (from the apple store online)... Ordered it a few days after it was announced..

As for "waiting for something better" .. this will be my first mac (well I've had a powerbook for about a year, but my desktop has still been a pc), and I've been waiting .. and waiting .. and waiting ... for something new(er then the 1ghz moels) to come out .. These offered the ddr ram and ata100 so I decided to stop waiting and just order already ...

There will ALWAYS be something better in "a few months" .. if you keep waiting .. you'll never get anything ..

my 2c :D

[reyesmac]

If this was the Apple of 4 years ago this kind of speedbump would be OK. But in this day and age, is it really? You could just buy the low end system and put in a raid setup and a Gforce Ti card and probably end up with a system that is more usable than the high end one which would come with lesser hardware than your homebuilt system. The 1.25 still might win though only because Apple has crippled the older system by not upgrading the motherboard on it.

What I want to know is, is it worth it to spend $500 for a processor jump from 1gig to 1.25gig or from a $1000 from 867 to 1.25gig? Well, if you need the 1.25gig to make your mac running Maya or Final cut usable without feeling like the system was slow, then yes. But its still alot of money to pay for just the processor.

How much does the 1.25gig processor cost by itself to justify it costing $1000 dollars more than the 867. You cant say the motherboard because it only cost $500 to change the motherboard and the processor to 1gig. That is alot of money Apple gets to keep. Is it worth paying them that much just to own the fastest?

My point is that Apple can afford to sell their products at a more reasonable rate but even in an economy which Apple themselves say is bad they still charge $500 between processors. This was the case back when they sold 50mhz speed bumps as well if I am not mistaken.

I think the dual 867 has got to be the best deal on a Powermac that they have had in a long time. Even though the price for entry is $1,699 instead of $1,599 that they used to be a few years ago.

[ddtlm]

reyesmac:

Seeing as how the processors are the bottleneck, the items in limited supply, it seems acceptable that it would cost a lot.

P-Worm, other "who cares" people:

I was certainly interested in the dual 1.25, but I think I'll be putting some minimal upgrades into my dual 800 instead, and be waiting for a Power4-lite (or whatever G5 Apple eventually comes up with).

[Chisholm]

Yes, I agree with the 867 over the 1.25. I've had mine of a few weeks and its great. There are some anoying pauses at times for the OS to do something, but overall its a great box. its a little awkward getting to the main hard drive bay (how DO I get that damn screw back in???) but the rest is well done. Oh, BTW, if you pop the front lip off the cd tray it fits in the new optical slot just fine.

cheers!
John

[sparkleytone]

so how snappy does an os feel when it freezes?? how about when you are installing something and you cant do anything else?? exactly.

OS X.2 is a joy to use. It basically works as fast as I do, and I work fast. I also multitask like a biznitch, something OS 9 just plain sucked at.

also, i strongly suggest people thinking about new powermacs in january rethink their position. i would almost guarantee we wont see powermacs until march if they are a new generation of hardware. IF they are still g4-based, I'd still say mid February at the earliest. Apple is doing a pretty stable job of keeping 6 months product cycles.

[BigFish]

I wonder if the 1.25's are a new G4 chip, say the 7470. Maybe that is why it was delayed for so long. Does anyone have any info on that?

I agree about there not being any updates to the powermac line until March and then, possibly, a new chip in the September-ish release.

I'm good with my B&W 400 G3 right now, but I'll see if I can wait another year for a possible G5 debut. I am praying!

[fourthtunz]

Instead of buying the 1.25 Mac I opted to buy the dual 867 and keep my quick silver 733 too! What a combo! Still cheaper than the 1.25dual and faster with 2 machines! I think X.2 is fast if you have alot of ram,kind of slow if not.
Daniel

[teabgs]

so, I ordered mine on the 15th ...2 days after the announcement....I FOR ONE CARE!


I think its great that theyre finally shipping. Im upgrading from a 6500....so Its on hell of an upgrade for me :D


I sure hope I get mine soon.....

*drool*

[ddtlm]

BigFish:

Uh, if they were the often-rumored "7470" then how exactly are they different than the 7450 or 7455? Same FSB, same L2, same L3, in fact all the known specs match a 7455... wow what a nice new chip.

sparkleytone:

No kidding, why in the heck would anyone have any reason to think there would be new towers in Janruary? Despite the endless, and dare I say stupid, "7470" rumors, I don't think there will be any new G4 designs or any higher clocked G4's until Moto or IBM starts making them on either 130nm or 90nm processes. It actually looks like Moto may be planning on skipping 130nm entirely and arriving at 90nm sometime early next year. They are claiming they'll beat Intel, and Intel is almost certainly going to be there in 6 months. We do know that Moto will eventually go to 90nm because they said so, and when they do we know they'll take some form of G4 to it because it's cheaper to make 90nm chips than 180nm chips, in addition to the lower heat output and the higher clock speeds.

Anyway, blah blah blah.

[i_wolf]

Its always going to be the case that when you run an old OS on new hardware the new hardware will blitz it. Heck on the PC side of the fence you need a minimum of a 300Mhz P2 to run XP when originally the same machine would run win98 fast as hell. Its probably likely that MS's and Apples next OS revisions/updates/versions will cripple todays hardware..... its the nature of the beast. To the gentleman with the grandfather with the iMac running at 800MHz. Why don't you install yellowdog linux on it. Despite rumors its real easy to set up.... it will run faster that OS X does currently on you grandfathers iMac and will give him the stability that OS X offers also..... there are many other benefits. And before anyone flames me.... its great, ive tried it and its a snappier experience than Jaguar (10.2). Maybe a dual boot set up would be for you????!!! (and its not as difficult as people would make out !)
Best of luck.

[BongHits]

im not sure wtf to put this...but i've seen everyone referring to the new pm's as the Mirrored-Drive Bay Power Macs. I was just mulling over apple's os x page...went to the upgrade link...and noticed how u can purchase os 9 for 15.95 (that's why no os 9 with jag)...above this link is the Jag Sys Req...i saw them refer to a picture of the new powermacs with the caption Dual Processor Power Mac...beneath that was the Quicksilver so i know that's their new name (all other compatible macs are pictured with names)

like anyone gives 2 ......

[arn]

Originally posted by BongHits
im not sure wtf to put this...but i've seen everyone referring to the new pm's as the Mirrored-Drive Bay Power Macs. I was just mulling over apple's os x page...went to the upgrade link...and noticed how u can purchase os 9 for 15.95 (that's why no os 9 with jag)...above this link is the Jag Sys Req...i saw them refer to a picture of the new powermacs with the caption Dual Processor Power Mac...beneath that was the Quicksilver so i know that's their new name (all other compatible macs are pictured with names)


Apple actually called them Mirrored Drive Doors in their technotes.

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=75382

which is why everyone else started to.

arn

[sehix]

Originally posted by oldMac
No doubt about it...

After using OS X for a while, you install OS 9 on a machine and it feels *A LOT* faster.

Well, until you actually try to do some work, and find yourself waiting for process to finish before you can do something else.

You don't realize how much more you can get done when you can switch to others apps while one is churning away at something else.

And if a marginal app suicides...which OS is going to let you get back to doing something useful?

[robguz]

Originally posted by katman

.. if you keep waiting .. you'll never get anything ..

my 2c :D

Unfortunately that seems to be Apple's policy. Keep waiting and waiting and waiting for macs to get faster and become as fast as $600 PCs. We keep waiting and we never get anything. We waited for DDR, but we never got anything because it's a junky implementation. We waited 15 months since the 867 came out and we've gotten a whopping 383Mhz in all that time. Whoopee! Meanwhile the Wintel world gained 800Mhz and it was already ahead by 1Ghz!

These machines are overpriced junk for suckers. Makes most sense to get a bare bones DP 867 and just hang on for 5 or 6 more years until Apple shifts to a processor that's not stuck at 20th century speeds.

[katman]

I've been reading forum post after forum post on the back and forth issues between the mac and pc for some time now, and figured I'll throw some more c(ents) into the discussions..

I'm a long time PC user (Windows, but mainly Linux).. Sure I've used mac in the past, even admininistered them back in the day of the LC II's, so I'm trying to look at things from all angles..

for the past few years I've been die-hard pc, all custom built dual processor intel retail, etc... As of recent (maybe due to my growing out of things a bit), I've found the PC world a pain to deal with .. Sure .. you can get pc's for insanely low prices, or you can go costly .. I, for one would get the latest dp motherboard, latest or next to latest intel cpu (btw, the price difference between a 200-300 mhz jump could be upwards of $400 when the "newest" cpu comes out), latest hard drives, and the latest video card... throw it all together .. and most of the time it works .. and then .. blue screens .. nv driver errors .. etc... so I would swap parts, swap memory, etc.. and still have crashes .. So, I got fed up trying to figure out if i want to custom build the latest intel p4 or the latest amd, and just went to Dell and "trusted" a configuration on the latest (of the time) p4 ... Put my gf4 in it .. and its worked without a single crash .. not a SINGLE crash ..

Now, I am in no way pushing the pc here .. but, Dell (supposedly, we "hope" [laf]) tested components and found configurations that work (most of the time) without crashing... you know what? it works, and has worked ever since .. no dp, no "custom" build .. just a plain-jane dell tower with my gf4 in it... the machine was costly ($1500 for a "bare" box .. meaning cheap sound, cheap hard drive, no extra features as I moved my cdr/sound/etc.. from the old machine over)..

In comes Apple .. They give you a choice of configs, albeit costly, but they are the ONLY configs .. you don't have a choice of motherboards .. or a choice of competing or OEM bulk cpus, besides choice of optical drive, video card, memory and hard drive size everything else is pre-tested and (we hope) works .. The hardware companies build their drivers to work with their hardware and an "APPLE Computer" .. not a "Joe-blow custom config bare boned system".. There's alot to be said about that ..

I, personally, would rather pay more and get something that I know will work, then pay less, and then pay more and more to try to get it to work .. and deal with the frustration .. time is money .. as a hobby its fun to get a cheap pc and max it out, but its not fun dealing with nvidia weird driver crashes with XP/2k when in the middle of a online multiplayer game :-)

On to speed .. A bunch of us ran some tests using the RC5 distributed networking software to see how long processing takes .. on a 2.25ghz P4 it would process 4million keys per second .. on my 667mhz rev b. powerbook it did 6 million keys/sec .. and on our shiny new dp867 it did about 18million keys/sec .. i don't know about you, but i consider that fast ... yeah yeah blah blah altivec blah not real world benchmarking .. well .. it kinda is .. there is an actual piece of software that shows that in at least one case (a REAL-WORLD case) the mac wipes the floor with the PC ..

and finally .. gotta love OSX .. I see a lot of Mac people complaining about how slow it is, and disliking that spinning ball .. well .. i've used and still on occasion use OS9 .. the little watch that sits there not letting me do anything is a real pain .. sure OS9 is fast .. fast at showing me that damn watch .. at least with the ball i can do other things like check mail or whatever.. coming from the *nix world I may have a bit (or a lot) more respect for whats going on in OSX .. but it definately is far better then OS9 .. AND windows (no comparison)... oh .. and having a Unix Layer .. being able to run just about all the open source apps that I run on my linux servers and workstations, and running commercial apps like Word and Photoshop along side them .. welp, I made a bunch of our "EXTREME" unix/networking guru's from the Internet2 project jealous and drool a bit..

I shelled out <alot> for my new dp1.25ghz and CARE that it shipped today .. when it comes i'll place it beside the dell and use it along side my powerbook, and not care that its "only" 1.25ghz.. :D

The biggest problem with the 1.25ghz being a small jump over the 1ghz is not with Apple or motorola .. its with the people that believe the rumors that the 1.6 or 2ghz powermac or even 64bit power4 based version will be coming out .. Apple NEVER SAID that this would be a big deal (before hand) .. the new imac .. that was a big deal .. the 1ghz powermac .. not a big deal .. the 1.25ghz powermac .. not a big deal .. There were no flashy Apple ads stating this would be the end all machine.. just a whole lot of people guessing .. ;)

Sorry for the long, probably pointless rant .. its been building up for some time (and its getting late here.. need sleep) .. and i know its not going to make a dent in anyone's thoughts .. they're clearly just my own, and everyone is entitled to think what they want, and believe what they want (especially when they're flat out wrong :D)

[ddtlm]

katman:

Never ever use RC5 as "proof" of how fast Macs are amoung people who can ask the following question:

"Yes, but can you name another app that shows that performance delta?"

As much as I like it, my Mac is a dog compared to my 3 PC's, and I just cannot understand how anyone could claim otherwise. Sad sad. Maybe I should go run some RC5 to make myself feel better.

[MacBandit]

Well to all of you waiting for the next great thing. I'm here right now enjoying my new Dual Ghz/DDR and let me tell you this thing flies. Hands down one of if not the fastest computer I have ever use or seen used. Yes it might not be quite the fastest with just one app going but try using it with 10apps at once. The thing just does not slow down throwing everything you got at it. I can render an iMovie and burn a cd at the same time meanwhile play Unreal Tournament and nothing slows down. The thing is totally awesome.

Yes OSX is slower then OS9 but everything on OSX happens nearly instantaneous on this machine in any case it's always waiting on me not the other way around. Also from what I understand at this point with 10.2 the system is only about %50 optimized. The point is that OSX will get even faster and you don't really need it now if you have current hardware.

[DakotaGuy]

Are the 1.25 Dual Processors really going to be that slow? People on here make them sound comparable to an Atari. I would LOVE to have the money for that machine...it has to be a quick mother.

[iwantanewmac]

There will ALWAYS be something better in "a few months" .. if you keep waiting .. you'll never get anything ..

my 2c :D [/B][/QUOTE]

I know that there will be always be something better.
It's just those new "DDR" towers don't really convinced me. I got yikesed before and I do NOT want to make the same mistake twice.

[iwantanewmac]

Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
Are the 1.25 Dual Processors really going to be that slow? People on here make them sound comparable to an Atari. I would LOVE to have the money for that machine...it has to be a quick mother.

Yes they might be quick but it's a bit odd that you have to spend $3300 to get a bit of speed...
At least that's what I think......

[jbmelby]

I have just received a notice that my Dual 1.25 GHz computer shipped yesterday and will be here tomorrow!
:D

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by ddtlm
katman:
Never ever use RC5 as "proof" of how fast Macs are amoung people who can ask the following question:
"Yes, but can you name another app that shows that performance delta?"

As much as I like it, my Mac is a dog compared to my 3 PC's, and I just cannot understand how anyone could claim otherwise. Sad sad. Maybe I should go run some RC5 to make myself feel better.

Thats too bad, you must not have a new Mac with X.2, cause its way fast! What apps are you running that are so slow on your Mac?
If they are video apps the NEW Mac is King! Maybe you have all your extensions on, that kind of slows down the old Macs.
I'm sure anyone here would be glad to help you with that.
Peace
Daniel
:D

[gopher]

You have a lot of Mac OS 9 and earlier software that breaks under
Classic and want the fastest machine that will run that software.

You have a lot invested in Mac OS 9 applications and currently
can't invest in more applications until sometime in the indeterminable future.

You need to burn DVDs, run Final Cut Pro, or Adobe Photoshop now at the fastest speed possible and can't wait for a new computer.

You want to play Mac games now at the fastest speed possible and like using dual monitors while doing this.

Reasons not to get the G4 now: you are willing to upgrade the applications to Mac OS X when you get a new machine, or already have, or just purchased a new machine recently.

Remember Apple does offer a 3 months same as cash deal, a Federal Employee deal, and a student/educator deal on their machines.

The good news with the 1.25 Ghz dual processor shipping now, is all rumors of it waiting till November are wrong, and it means the next newer high end machine will be able to ship earlier that probably expected before.

[gopher]

Originally posted by robguz


Unfortunately that seems to be Apple's policy. Keep waiting and waiting and waiting for macs to get faster and become as fast as $600 PCs. We keep waiting and we never get anything. We waited for DDR, but we never got anything because it's a junky implementation. We waited 15 months since the 867 came out and we've gotten a whopping 383Mhz in all that time. Whoopee! Meanwhile the Wintel world gained 800Mhz and it was already ahead by 1Ghz!

These machines are overpriced junk for suckers. Makes most sense to get a bare bones DP 867 and just hang on for 5 or 6 more years until Apple shifts to a processor that's not stuck at 20th century speeds.

Looks like another troll. Macs are alot faster than any $600 PC out there. Any applications that are slower on today's Mac are only because the developer hasn't optimized their software for the Mac. There are lots of alternative software packages here:

http://www.versiontracker.com/
http://guide.apple.com/
http://www.macupdate.com/
http://www.allmacintosh.com/
http://www.macdownload.com/
http://hyperarchive.lcs.mit.edu/HyperArchive/SearchForm.html

[MacBandit]

To think the new 1.25Ghz macs are only a little faster then the old Dual/Ghz machines is a big mistake. My new Dual/Ghz/DDR is not really any faster at running one application but put it side by side with an old Dual/Ghz and try multitasking multiple applications and it will eat the old one for lunch and spit it out. This being so the new Dual/1.25 will be very very fast.

For everyone out there that doesn't believe in the current implementation of DDR please read this thread.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10377

[polbit]

I must say that OS X is definately slugish when it comes to the UI. I just got my first Mac, the Dual 1GHz DDR PM, and even after upgrading to 1.25Gb RAM, it is nowhere near the snapiness of my old 1.4Ghz P4 Sony Vaio with Win XP.

Having said that, I still love the OS X and would never go back, but I do think that Apple should work a little harder on making the UI experience faster. They have the great looks, and the extra speed would just make the already great OS that much better.

[ddtlm]

Abercrombieboy:

Of course they're not especially slow, in fact they'll perform a nice 25% or more on top of any Mac any of us have ever used. If I had another $3k or so laying around I'd even get one.

fourthtunz:

That's correct, I am still running 10.1.5, but notice I did not complain about interface speed issues, which is really all that 10.2 significantly speeds up. Slapping a faster interface on my Mac (DP 800 with 1.5gigs of RAM) will still leave it as a dog compared to my PCs when there is work to do. (I figure I'll go to 10.2 in 2 to 4 weeks, get a Radeon 9000 or 8500, and jump to a pair of 10k RPM SCSI disks.)

gopher:

Hmmm, well if you specified what "Macs" you are talking about then you might have a point... but for sure you or I can get a $600 PC that is faster than an eMac or iMac. Oh and look, there you are blaming all of Apple's performance problems on programmers who didn't optimize enough for Macs... you do realize that Intel has been saying exactly the same thing about software and their P4, don't you?

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by polbit
I must say that OS X is definately slugish when it comes to the UI. I just got my first Mac, the Dual 1GHz DDR PM, and even after upgrading to 1.25Gb RAM, it is nowhere near the snapiness of my old 1.4Ghz P4 Sony Vaio with Win XP.

Having said that, I still love the OS X and would never go back, but I do think that Apple should work a little harder on making the UI experience faster. They have the great looks, and the extra speed would just make the already great OS that much better.

You will probably see a significant speed boost in 10.2 by simply repairing permissions. Also obviously a faster graphics card will also help.

[polbit]

Well, I'm waiting for the ATI 9700 to come out, and hopefully that will help :) I'm assuming that with QE the graphics card plays a big role in the perceived speed, however the 9000 Pro that I have now is not THAT slow.

I'll also check out the 1.25s when they come to the local Apple Store. Maybe they will be significantly faster...

[gopher]

Mind you the iMac and eMacs that are out there now are G4 processors, and yes, those are faster than any $600 PC. If you are talking about the $800 iMac, well that's another story, but even so it is there to fit the $1000 psychological barrier some PC people place on computers. The iApps alone are worth the cost of admission. And if you are really into pricing things, you can buy any Mac from the Apple store at 3 months same as cash, or even up to a 5 year loan from Apple. Your $600 PC doesn't have the same level of support, the same level of software/hardware integration, the same ability to code software (Mac OS X comes with its own developer tools on all Macs in the Installer folder of the Applications folder and the restore CDs), the ability to run Mac only applications (for $250 I can get Windows XP or 2000 emulation on my Mac), the ability to boot from an external Firewire hard disk, the 400 Mbps external hard drive support that is hot swappable and supported without extra drivers (USB 2's true speed is only about 150 Mbps even though it has been rated at 480 Mbps), and chances are it doesn't even come with ethernet. As much as PC people try to say Macs cost too much, Macs offer a lot more added value than any PCs in the same price range. I could go on and on, but I suggest you check http://www.apple.com/switch/ which really goes over the details very well. Don't dismiss it as Apple propoganda, as it is all true.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by ddtlm

fourthtunz:
That's correct, I am still running 10.1.5, but notice I did not complain about interface speed issues, which is really all that 10.2 significantly speeds up. Slapping a faster interface on my Mac (DP 800 with 1.5gigs of RAM) will still leave it as a dog compared to my PCs when there is work to do. (I figure I'll go to 10.2 in 2 to 4 weeks, get a Radeon 9000 or 8500, and jump to a pair of 10k RPM SCSI disks.)
[/B]

Well, please note that I am talking about real work with a dual 867,x.2, and final cut among others. I don't know how you can comment on this since you are running an older Mac, an older os and not final cut? With X.2 I have found the dual to be about 90% faster than a 733 with the same os. I rendered a piece of video in 30 min vs 54 min on the 733 I think if you upgrade you will see more than just alittle difference but the new Macs are better too. Again what apps are you using? I do audio/video full time and the included apps and the new speed are just what I needed. If you are playing games on the internet,well maybe you should continue with the PC? One thing is for sure X.2 is only going to get better. PS.The new Machines have raid software and plenty of room for striped ide drives! Peace
Daniel

[robguz]

Originally posted by gopher


Looks like another troll. Macs are alot faster than any $600 PC out there. Any applications that are slower on today's Mac are only because the developer hasn't optimized their software for the Mac. There are lots of alternative software packages here:

I love that! I'm a troll because I dare to criticize Apple and their overpriced products and don't constantly defend them and kiss their A$$, or maybe I should say ".a$$".

I hate PCs. I wish they were gone from the world. But they exist and they are the comptetition and the competition is pummeling us and getting further and further ahead. Many benchmarks prove this. oh sure if all you do is run RC5 by all means spend $3300 an do this on Apple's latest and greatest. Be sure to also give me a call once they take off the straight jacket and release you from the institution. Apple is not as far behind in PS, but in many other things, in fact, most of the things that most non-compting-professionals (i.e. the vast majority of computer users) do, are quite faster on a $600 PC than the top of the line mac.

Recently I started editing a long document with lots of excel charts in it. I had been doing this for weeks on a Ti 550 in word v.X SP1 running 10.2 Then to finish it at my job, I did the rest on a P2 266 running Win 2000. I was blown away by how fast it felt. While I'm sure it would be trounced by the Ti in things like PS. This very old PC was so much faster in word and excel that I was shocked. net surfing was also much faster. The UI was so much faster too. I was embarassed for my Ti. I can't imagine what a 2.6 Ghz PC must feel like. Sure Win 2000 sucked, but it was certainly usable on an old machine with less than half the RAM of my Ti which has 512MB. I still liked my Ti better for working ont he document because I look how OSX works for the most part and the PC has no scroll wheel moss and a crappy 800X600 resolution screen. But, wow, it never felt even one bit sluggish.

When I go to the Apple store and play with the DP 1Ghz, I leave disappointed. It doesn't blow me away. The 1.25 is a whopping 19% faster despite the 25% greater clock speed and 1MB more L3 cache. Sorry, it's overpriced and inexcusable at this stage in the game. We are never going to win over PC users with aesthetics and promises of greater usability and finesse with computers that cost 2-3X the price and "feel" 1/2 the speed or less. And this is what Apple must do to succeed. And now they want to spurn MS even more by ditching explorer? They want to drive them to drop Office. When that happens, Apple dies. Simple as that. I've tried using other programs with "converters." Sorry, they don't work and they screw up office documents.

The world uses Office. And since the Bush administration loves a good monopoly, their justice department took the slap on the wrist approach to an anti-trust settlement which will do absolutely nothing to stop the MS hegemony. sad, but true.

I criticize Apple because I want them to succeed and produce killer products. Nobody ever succeeds by resting on their laurels. macs are too expensive and too slow. End of story. That doesn't mean I'll buy a PC. But it does mean it will take me longer to buy another mac than it would if Apple could produce speed gains as fast as the PC world is.

[fourthtunz]

Originally posted by robguz

When I go to the Apple store and play with the DP 1Ghz, I leave disappointed. It doesn't blow me away. The 1.25 is a whopping 19% faster despite the 25% greater clock speed and 1MB more L3 cache.

Well, I don't know about playing with it, but for DVD creation, Video editing, graphics, audio and running multiple apps at the same time the new duals and X.2 rule! The Gui isn't as mature as windows 2000 or even OS9.2 but for real work The new Mac is now very fast. I don't think I'd spend $3000 on any computer to surf the net or word process, sound like you should be looking at an Imac or an emac?